I know it's been discussed but after re-reading it I would like your opinions on something I noticed:

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like the word "witness" is used for Lechmere (except for the "last witness" they met, which I believe means Mizen).
Companion I think is used to describe Paul.

Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.

If I'm correct then doesn't that mean Lechmere suggested propping up Nichols and not Paul?

I see the Police Illustrated said it was the "witness" who said he wouldn't touch her, but I'm interested in opinions on the Daily Telegraph report.

No, I am sorry, but Lechmere could not have met with the police on Saturday.

In the papers of the 3:nd, that is to say on Monday, there is this information:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said (laying down that the interview took place on Sunday evening, my remark) that the report ... Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street.

Neil also testified on Saturday the 1:st that he was the finder of the body.

If the police had corroborated testimony inbetween Paul and Lechmere, why would they claim that Neil was the finder, and specifically lay down that he had NOT been shown to the body by two men? That would make nil sense.

Lechmere would therefore have gone to the police after the interview with Neil and the police on Sunday evening. And, interestingly, this means that he went there after the Paul interview - pointing himself out - was published on that same Sunday.

Therefore, it was not Lechmere who was the forthcoming material spoken of. It could have been anything else, and it could have been a red herring, thus never spoken of at the inquest.

I know it's been discussed but after re-reading it I would like your opinions on something I noticed:

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like the word "witness" is used for Lechmere (except for the "last witness" they met, which I believe means Mizen).
Companion I think is used to describe Paul.

Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.

If I'm correct then doesn't that mean Lechmere suggested propping up Nichols and not Paul?

I see the Police Illustrated said it was the "witness" who said he wouldn't touch her, but I'm interested in opinions on the Daily Telegraph report.

Columbo

You have got it right - and the Daily Telegraph got it wrong, as the only paper. Look at the Morning Advertiser, where the words are given ad verbatim, Lechmere speaking:

"I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."

With over thirty years experience in dealing with police about major crimes, I can positively attest that the police do NOT divulge all their information to the media.

We know from Sir Charles Warren's memos that this was the case back then during the crimes.

We also do not know exactly when PC Neil's refute was actually made.

There is no indication that Inspector Helson denied the "two men" story. It seems to have come directly from a comment by PC Neil.

When Neil made that comment is unknown.

There is some indication that PC Neil's claim may stem from the Saturday, after the inquest, and before Paul's story was published.

Earlier in the Lloyds Sunday edition was this paragraph,

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discoverthe body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police ..."
(My emphasis)

The "last night" the newspaper was referring to, was the Saturday night.

Therefore PC Neil's might well have claimed,

"It is not true ... that he was called to the body by two men."

prior to the Sunday's publication of Paul's story.

Once again we are faced with the distinct possibility that Xmere went to the police prior to Robert Paul's story and possibly on Saturday afternoon.

__________________dustymiller
aka drstrange

"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman.
On comparing the reports in the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Advertiser for the Tuesday 4th Sept editions I found, as you and others have done, that there are inconsistencies with the details presented in the accounts of the inquiry.Daily Telegraph : 'Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.'

Daily News : 'Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.'

Morning Advertiser : 'Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.'

The Times : 'Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.'

Evening Standard : 'Police constable George Maizen, 55H, said - On Friday morning, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and the witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.) I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station, and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.'

The Evening Standard report appears to be an almost verbatim reprint of the Morning Advertiser report.

Both the Times and the Morning Advertiser fail to include a report of Lechmere/Cross informing Mizen of the presence of a constable.

The pertinent passage in The Times as was being discussed above reads 'George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock. Witness walked along Buck's-row, and saw something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin. He then saw it was a woman. A man came along and witness spoke to him. They went and looked at the body. Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so. He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark. They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead. The constable replied "All right." The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to the witness. At the time he did not think the woman had been murdered. Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him.'

Clearly, these press reports are in argument with each other in what may be important areas.

As these appear to be the main documents we are to rely on for information relating to the inquest, what method of filter do you suggest we utilise so as to better clarify and comprehend the circumstances being discussed?

You have got it right - and the Daily Telegraph got it wrong, as the only paper. Look at the Morning Advertiser, where the words are given ad verbatim, Lechmere speaking:

"I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."

Isn't it interesting the small details and subtle changes in wording across newspapers? I read through several and the majority are in agreement that Paul wanted to move the body.

I also wonder if any of the papers got their story through the Central News agency.

No, I am sorry, but Lechmere could not have met with the police on Saturday.

In the papers of the 3:nd, that is to say on Monday, there is this information:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said (laying down that the interview took place on Sunday evening, my remark) that the report ... Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street.

Neil also testified on Saturday the 1:st that he was the finder of the body.

If the police had corroborated testimony inbetween Paul and Lechmere, why would they claim that Neil was the finder, and specifically lay down that he had NOT been shown to the body by two men? That would make nil sense.

Lechmere would therefore have gone to the police after the interview with Neil and the police on Sunday evening. And, interestingly, this means that he went there after the Paul interview - pointing himself out - was published on that same Sunday.

Therefore, it was not Lechmere who was the forthcoming material spoken of. It could have been anything else, and it could have been a red herring, thus never spoken of at the inquest.

The passage from The Telegraph that you quote does appear to me to be interpreted in that manner. Cross clearly is asking Paul to assist in propping up or moving the body and Paul is refusing. Certainly, that is my interpretation.
What is also very interesting, and I hadn't noticed this before, is the statement "Just then they heard a policeman coming". This doesn't seem to be reported in other transcripts of the same testimony.
Why, if a policeman was heard to be approaching, would they leave in search of another policeman? I believe that this requires some consideration. It may be a mistranscribed passage from another witness statement, so I shall look in that direction first.

Other newspapers reporting on the proceedings at this inquest, do conflate or truncate parts of a witness's testimony, very possibly to fit a word count requirement.
Undesirably some newspapers also showed the practice, particularly The Times', of freely interchanging the formally styled 'witness' with the more ordinary 'he' or 'she'.
This may have been due to an editor inserting the word 'witness' in the appropriate places so as to give the article more the appearance of an official transcript or to reflect that newspapers own in-house editorial style and standards. It may also have been due to a hurried, deadline stricken reporter making transcription errors while preparing an article for the print run. However, it appears to have been applied inconsistently, even within the same portion.
Such seemingly careless and apparently unfinished alteration work has allowed an imprecise and contradictory record of important witness narratives to be set down. This permits for greater confusion during comparison of testimony than one might desire and has left certain passages regarding crucial events open to, in some cases, speculative interpretation.

I know it's been discussed but after re-reading it I would like your opinions on something I noticed:

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like the word "witness" is used for Lechmere (except for the "last witness" they met, which I believe means Mizen).
Companion I think is used to describe Paul.

Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.

If I'm correct then doesn't that mean Lechmere suggested propping up Nichols and not Paul?

I see the Police Illustrated said it was the "witness" who said he wouldn't touch her, but I'm interested in opinions on the Daily Telegraph report.

Columbo

My opinion is that it is very interesting, indeed. I asked about the possibility that Lechmere had not refused to "prop her up", but get the feeling that this account is the odd report out, as most other newspapers accounts of his witness testimony indicate Paul suggested it, and Cross/Lechmere declined.

I'm wondering if this bit comes from Paul's interview, in which he gave himself a grander role as the "finder" of the poor woman. For all we know, maybe the Daily Telegraph reporter went to the inquest and recorded the account faithfully, instead of borrowing info from other sources.
(That is, of course, merely my speculation.)

Unfortunately, with neither the inquest papers, nor any police notes about Cross/Lechmere, we'll never know. Frustrating...